browser_drop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveness and open world interaction. The description adds the 'as if dragged from outside the page' context, but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling, what happens if the element rejects the drop, or side effects beyond basic mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a necessary condition. Every word adds value with no redundancy or extraneous details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main purpose and constraints, but given the complexity (4 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), it could mention expected outcomes (e.g., success/failure confirmation) or common error cases. Still, it adequately informs usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds a critical constraint not in the schema (mutual exclusivity or requirement of at least one of 'paths' or 'data'). It also clarifies the purpose of these parameters as file paths or MIME data maps, enhancing the schema which already has individual descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: dropping files or MIME-typed data onto an element, simulating an external drag. It specifies the verb 'drop', the resource type, and distinguishes from siblings like browser_drag (internal) and browser_file_upload (input-based).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for external drag operations but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. It mentions the constraint that at least one of 'paths' or 'data' must be provided, but lacks comparative guidance with siblings like browser_drag.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.